The plurality of the human racePouchet, G. (Georges)
Philosophy
The plurality of the human race
Pouchet, G. (Georges)
Monogenism and polygenism
As to the idea of limited variety, propounded by Isidore Geoffroy,
we can only see in it an unfortunate restriction of his father’s
theory,--one of those errors into which even the most judicious minds
are liable to fall. Limited! Does he mean that there is a point where
these variations stop, and consequently a point where they have
commenced? Does he mean that some neighbouring animal species are
derived from a given prototype, similar to themselves, and without
any antecedents in the organic world? This is to return to Cuvier!
Limited! Does he mean that the modifications will not be considerable
in the present state of things, on account of this present state being
more or less modified? It comes to nothing directly we admit variety
as a consequence of the medium. Étienne Geoffroy was led by this kind
of idea, when, limiting his view to the short period of historical
time, and thinking he had discovered that our present climates do not
sensibly alter existing species,[308] he asked, “if there had not been
on the earth revolutions and disturbances of so vast a character that
their influence may not have been enormous; whilst in our days, changes
may have been according to the power of their effects, that is to say,
almost nothing.” And he explained everything by this convenient theory
of geological floods.
Before going farther, let us consider what we ought to think about
the disturbances of the terrestrial globe thus invoked by Étienne
Geoffroy. Now, to our mind, we have no authentic proof that the past of
our planet has really been marked by such frightful revolutions, and
geology does not make the tradition as clear as some have desired. We
think, although this is not the place to prove it, that if the changes
which have happened to the surface of the globe have been considerable,
they ought to be proportionally _weak_, resulting less from sudden and
powerful efforts than from those small and continuous actions[309] in
which nature puts forth its most formidable energies, but the progress
of which is not to be measured by the memory of man. In general, our
mind seizes but badly the notion of duration beyond certain limits. It
is not the same with the notion of force. Hence, the belief in floods.
In the presence of gigantic effects, the mind, in the appreciation of
the movers of this effect, has done what we have done every day in
mechanics. “It has changed mind into force.” It is certain that weak
but continuous forces (everywhere, however, the most powerful) have
been able to play a grander part in the history of our globe, than
these disturbances which we are in the habit of seeing everywhere.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account